I'm working on an exercise to calculate the length of a string using pointers.
Here's the code I've written below:
int main() {
std::string text = "Hello World";
std::string *string_ptr = &text;
int size = 0;
//Error below: ISO C++ forbids comparison between pointer and integer [-fpermissive]
while (string_ptr != '\0') {
size++;
string_ptr++;
}
std::cout << size;
}
In a lot of examples that I've seen, the string is often a char array which I also understand is a string. However, I want to try calculate it as a string object but I'm getting the error below.
Is it possible to calculate it where the string is an object, or does it need to be a char array?
If you just want the size of the string, well, use std::string::size():
auto size = text.size();
Alternatively, you can use length(), which does the same thing.
But I'm guessing you're trying to reimplement strlen for learning purposes. In that case, there are three problems with your code.
First, you're trying to count the number of characters in the string, and that means you need a pointer to char, not a pointer to std::string. That pointer should also point to constant characters, because you're not trying to modify those characters.
Second, to get a pointer to the string's characters, use its method c_str(). Getting the address of the string just gets you a pointer to the string itself, not its contents. Most importantly, the characters pointed to by c_str() are null terminated, so it is safe to use for your purposes here. Alternatively, use data(), which has been behaving identically to c_str() since C++11.
Finally, counting those characters involves checking if the value pointed to by the pointer is '\0', so you'll need to dereference it in your loop.
Putting all of this together:
const char* string_ptr = text.c_str(); // get the characters
int size = 0;
while (*string_ptr != '\0') { // make sure you dereference the pointer
size++;
string_ptr++;
}
Of course, this assumes the string does not contain what are known as "embedded nulls", which is when there are '\0' characters before the end. std::string can contain such characters and will work correctly. In that case, your function will return a different value from what the string's size() method would, but there's no way around it.
For that reason, you should really just call size().
First things first, the problem is irrelevant. std::string::size() is a O(1) (constant time) operation, as std::string's typically store their size. Even if you need to know the length of a C-style string (aka char*), you can use strlen. (I get that this is an exercise, but I still wanted to warn you.)
Anyway, here you go:
size_t cstrSize(const char* cstr)
{
size_t size(0);
while (*cstr != '\0')
{
++size;
++cstr;
}
return size;
}
You can get the underlying C-style string (which is a pointer to the first character) of a std::string by calling std::string::c_str(). What you did was getting a pointer to the std::string object itself, and dereferencing it would just give you that object back. And yes, you need to dereference it (using the * unary operator). That is why you got an error (which was on the (string_ptr != '\0') btw).
You are totally confused here.
“text” is a std::string, that is an object with a size() method retuning the length of the string.
“string_ptr” is a pointer to a std::string, that is a pointer to an object. Since it is a pointer to an object, you don’t use text.size() to get the length, but string_ptr->size().
So first, no, you can’t compare a pointer with an integer constant, only with NULL or another pointer.
The first time you increase string_ptr it points to the memory after the variable text. At that point using *string_ptr for anything will crash.
Remember: std::string is an object.
Related
I wrote a simple function that can get the size of a std::string class object, and I know that size() function in std::string does the same job, So I wanted to know if the size() function really works like my function or if it is more complicated? If it's more complicated, then how?
int sizeOfString(const string str) {
int i=0;
while (str[i] != '\0') {
++i;
}
return i;
}
An std::string can contain null bytes, so your sizeOfString() function will produce a different result on the following input:
std::string evil("abc\0def", 7);
As for your other question: the size() method simply reads out an internal size field, so it is always constant time, while yours is linear in the size of the string.
You can peek at the implementation of std::string::size for various implementations for yourself: libc++, MSVC, libstdc++.
No.
Firstly, a std::string can contain NUL characters that count as part of the length, so you can't use '\0' as a sentinal, in the way you would for C-strings.
Secondly, The Standard guarantees that std::string::size has constant complexity.
In practice there are a few slightly different ways to represent a std::string:
pointer to start of buffer, buffer size, length of current data - size() just has to return the length member.
pointer to start of buffer, pointer to end of current data, pointer to end of buffer - size() has to return a simple calculation.
It is different than your implementation.
Your function iterates over the string until it find a null byte. Null terminated string are how string are handled in C through char*. In C++ a string is a full object with member variables.
Specifically for C++, the size of the string is stored as part of the object, making the size() function simply read out the value of a variable.
For a interesting talk about how a string works in C++ check out this video from CppCon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPR8h4-qZdk
No. Not at all like that.
std::string actually maintains the size as one of its data member. Think of std::string as a container that keeps a pointer to the actual data(a char*) and length of that data separate.
When you call size(), it actually just returns this size, hence it's O(1).
One example to highlight it's effect in practicality will be
// WRONG IMPLEMENTATION
int wrongChangeLengthToZero(std::string& s)
{
assert(s.size() != 0);
s[0]='\';
return s.size(); // Won't return 0
}
// CORRECT
int correctChangeLengthToZero(std::string& s)
{
assert(s.size() != 0);
s.resize(0);
return s.size(); // Will return 0
}
So I am trying to avoid using strings for this. I am basically trying to make a string array.
char **hourtimes = (char**)malloc(100 * sizeof(char*));
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
(*hourtimes) = (char*)malloc((100 * sizeof(char)));
}
So I made a string array basically here
Now, I want to make hourtimes[0] = "twelve";
I tried doing *hourtimes = "twelve";
but I get the same error, I think this works in c, but I'm using c++
hourtimes[0][0] = 't';
hourtimes[0][1] = 'w';
etc works just fine but that would be too cumbersome
*hourtimes = "twelve" is setting *hourtimes to point to an immutable string literal. You are then trying to modify that immutable string. What you want to do is copy "twelve" into *hourtimes.
strcpy(hourtimes[0],"twelve");
Note: This answer was written at a time when the question was tagged for C. C++ will have different preferred ways of doing this kind of thing.
The error message tells you exactly what's wrong: You can't assign a const char * to a char *. What does that mean, though?
Both const char * and char * are types. They are, in fact, very nearly the same type; one is a pointer to a character, and the other is a pointer to a constant character. That means that the latter can't be changed1; that's, after all, what "constant" means. So when you try to tell the compiler to treat a pointer to a constant type as a pointer to a non-const type, it'll give you an error -- because otherwise it'd have no way to guarantee that the string isn't modified.
"whatever" is always a const char *, not a char *, because that's stored in memory that's generally not meant to be modified, and the compiler can make some really neat optimizations if it can safely assume that it's unchanged (which, because it's const, it can).
I won't tell you how to "properly" write the code you're going for, because if you're using C++, you should be using std::vector and std::string instead of anything with pointers whenever possible, and that probably includes here. If, for whatever reason, you need to use pointers, the comments have covered that well enough.
1: Okay, yes, it can -- but that's outside the scope of this answer, and I don't want to confuse any beginners.
In your allocation loop, (*hourtimes) is the same as hourtimes[0], so you are assigning your allocated sub-arrays to the same slot in the main array on each loop iteration, causing memory leaks and uninitialized slots. You need to use hourtimes[i] instead:
char **hourtimes = (char**)malloc(100 * sizeof(char*));
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
hourtimes[i] = (char*)malloc(100 * sizeof(char));
}
And don't forget to deallocate the arrays when you are done with them:
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
free(hourtimes[i]);
}
free(hourtimes);
Now, a string literal has type const char[N], where N is the number of characters in the literal, + 1 for the null terminator. So "twelve" would be a const char[7].
Your arrays only allow char* pointers to be stored, but a const char[N] decays into a const char* pointer to the first char. You can't assign a const char* to a char*, thus the compiler error.
Even if it were possible to do (which it is, but only with a type-cast), you shouldn't do it, because doing so would cause a memory leak as you would lose your original pointer to the allocated array, and worse free() can't deallocate a string literal anyway.
What you really want to do is copy the content of the string literal into the allocated array storage. You can use strncpy() for that:
strncpy(hourtimes[0], "twelve", 100);
Now, with all of that said, this is the C way of handling arrays of strings. The C++ way is to use std::vector and std::string instead:
#include <string>
#include <vector>
std::vector<std::string> hourtimes(100);
...
hourtimes[0] = "twelve";
This is a string literal, which can be used as a pointer to a constant char, but not as a pointer to a non-const char.
"twelve"
You do however attempt to assign it to a pointer to non-const char.
hourtimes[0] = "twelve";
That is what the compiler does not like.
I am trying to make a function like strcpy in C++. I cannot use built-in string.h functions because of restriction by our instructor. I have made the following function:
int strlen (char* string)
{
int len = 0;
while (string [len] != (char)0) len ++;
return len;
}
char* strcpy (char* *string1, char* string2)
{
for (int i = 0; i<strlen (string2); i++) *string1[i] = string2[i];
return *string1;
}
main()
{
char* i = "Farid";
strcpy (&i, "ABC ");
cout<<i;
}
But I am unable to set *string1 [i] value. When I try to do so an error appears on screen 'Program has encountered a problem and need to close'.
What should I do to resolve this problem?
Your strcpy function is wrong. When you write *string1[i] you are actually modifying the first character of the i-th element of an imaginary array of strings. That memory location does not exist and your program segfaults.
Do this instead:
char* strcpy (char* string1, char* string2)
{
for (int i = 0; i<strlen (string2); i++) string1[i] = string2[i];
return string1;
}
If you pass a char* the characters are already modifiable. Note It is responsibility of the caller to allocate the memory to hold the copy. And the declaration:
char* i = "Farid";
is not a valid allocation, because the i pointer will likely point to read-only memory. Do instead:
char i[100] = "Farid";
Now i holds 100 chars of local memory, plenty of room for your copy:
strcpy(i, "ABC ");
If you wanted this function to allocate memory, then you should create another one, say strdup():
char* strdup (char* string)
{
size_t len = strlen(string);
char *n = malloc(len);
if (!n)
return 0;
strcpy(n, string);
return n;
}
Now, with this function the caller has the responsibility to free the memory:
char *i = strdup("ABC ");
//use i
free(i);
Because this error in the declaration of strcpy: "char* *string1"
I don't think you meant string1 to be a pointer to a pointer to char.
Removing one of the * should word
The code has several issues:
You can't assign a string literal to char* because the string literal has type char const[N] (for a suitable value of N) which converts to char const* but not to char*. In C++03 it was possible to convert to char* for backward compatibility but this rule is now gone. That is, your i needs to be declared char const*. As implemented above, your code tries to write read-only memory which will have undesirable effects.
The declaration of std::strcpy() takes a char* and a char const*: for the first pointer you need to provide sufficient space to hold a string of the second argument. Since this is error-prone it is a bad idea to use strcpy() in the first place! Instead, you want to replicate std::strncpy() which takes as third argument the length of the first buffer (actually, I'm never sure if std::strncpy() guarantees zero termination or not; you definitely also want to guarantee zero termination).
It is a bad idea to use strlen() in the loop condition as the function needs to be evaluated for each iteration of the loop, effectively changing the complexity of strlen() from linear (O(N)) to quadratic (O(N2)). Quadratic complexity is very bad. Copying a string of 1000 characters takes 1000000 operations. If you want to try out the effect, copy a string with 1000000 characters using a linear and a quadratic algorithm.
Your strcpy() doesn't add a null-terminator.
In C++ (and in C since ~1990) the implicit int rule doesn't apply. That is, you really need to write int in front of main().
OK, a couple of things:
you are missing the return type for the main function
declaration. Not really allowed under the standard. Some compilers will still allow it, but others will fail on the compile.
the way you have your for loop structured in
strcpy you are calling your strlen function each time through
the loop, and it is having to re-count the characters in the source
string. Not a big deal with a string like "ABC " but as strings get
longer.... Better to save the value of the result into a variable and use that in the for loop
Because of the way that you are declaring i in
`main' you are pointing to read-only storage, and will be causing an
access violation
Look at the other answers here for how to rebuild your code.
Pointer use in C and C++ is a perennial issue. I'd like to suggest the following tutorial from Paul DiLorenzo, "Learning C++ Pointers for REAL dummies.".
(This is not to imply that you are a "dummy," it's just a reference to the ",insert subject here> for Dummies" lines of books. I would not be surprised that the insertion of "REAL" is to forestall lawsuits over trademarked titles)
It is an excellent tutorial.
Hope it helps.
I am new to C++, and haven't quite grasped all the concepts yet, so i am perplexed at why this function does not work. I am currently not at home, so i cannot post the compiler error just yet, i will do it as soon as i get home.
Here is the function.
const char * ConvertToChar(std::string input1, std::string input2) {
// Create a string that you want converted
std::stringstream ss;
// Streams the two strings together
ss << input1 << input2;
// outputs it into a string
std::string msg = ss.str();
//Creating the character the string will go in; be sure it is large enough so you don't overflow the array
cont char * cstr[80];
//Copies the string into the char array. Thus allowing it to be used elsewhere.
strcpy(cstr, msg.c_str());
return * cstr;
}
It is made to concatenate and convert two strings together to return a const char *. That is because the function i want to use it with requires a const char pointer to be passed through.
The code returns a pointer to a local (stack) variable. When the caller gets this pointer that local variable doesn't exist any more. This is often called dangling reference.
If you want to convert std::string to a c-style string use std::string::c_str().
So, to concatenate two strings and get a c-style string do:
std::string input1 = ...;
std::string input2 = ...;
// concatenate
std::string s = input1 + input2;
// get a c-style string
char const* cstr = s.c_str();
// cstr becomes invalid when s is changed or destroyed
Without knowing what the error is, it's hard to say, but this
line:
const char* cstr[80];
seems wrong: it creates an array of 80 pointers; when it
implicitly converts to a pointer, the type will be char
const**, which should give an error when it is passed as an
argument to strcpy, and the dereference in the return
statement is the same as if you wrote cstr[0], and returns the
first pointer in the array—since the contents of the array
have never been initialized, this is undefined behavior.
Before you go any further, you have to define what the function
should return—not only its type, but where the pointed to
memory will reside. There are three possible solutions to this:
Use a local static for the buffer:
This solution was
frequently used in early C, and is still present in a number of
functions in the C library. It has two major defects: 1)
successive calls will overwrite the results, so the client code
must make its own copy before calling the function again, and 2)
it isn't thread safe. (The second issue can be avoided by using
thread local storage.) In cases like yours, it also has the
problem that the buffer must be big enough for the data, which
probably requires dynamic allocation, which adds to the
complexity.
Return a pointer to dynamically allocated memory:
This works well in theory, but requires the client code to free
the memory. This must be rigorously documented, and is
extremely error prone.
Require the client code to provide the buffer:
This is probably the best solution in modern code, but it does
mean that you need extra parameters for the address and the
length of the buffer.
In addition to this: there's no need to use std::ostringstream
if all you're doing is concatenating; just add the two strings.
Whatever solution you use, verify that the results will fit.
I like "reinventing the wheel" for learning purposes, so I'm working on a container class for strings. Will using the NULL character as an array terminator (i.e., the last value in the array will be NULL) cause interference with the null-terminated strings?
I think it would only be an issue if an empty string is added, but I might be missing something.
EDIT: This is in C++.
"" is the empty string in C and C++, not NULL. Note that "" has exactly one element (instead of zero), meaning it is equivalent to {'\0'} as an array of char.
char const *notastring = NULL;
char const *emptystring = "";
emptystring[0] == '\0'; // true
notastring[0] == '\0'; // crashes
No, it won't, because you won't be storing in an array of char, you'll be storing in an array of char*.
char const* strings[] = {
"WTF"
, "Am"
, "I"
, "Using"
, "Char"
, "Arrays?!"
, 0
};
It depends on what kind of string you're storing.
If you're storing C-style strings, which are basically just pointers to character arrays (char*), there's a difference between a NULL pointer value, and an empty string. The former means the pointer is ‘empty’, the latter means the pointer points to an array that contains a single item with character value 0 ('\0'). So the pointer still has a value, and testing it (if (foo[3])) will work as expected.
If what you're storing are C++ standard library strings of type string, then there is no NULL value. That's because there is no pointer, and the string type is treated as a single value. (Whereas a pointer is technically not, but can be seen as a reference.)
I think you are confused. While C-strings are "null terminated", there is no "NULL" character. NULL is a name for a null pointer. The terminator for a C-string is a null character, i.e. a byte with a value of zero. In ASCII, this byte is (somewhat confusingly) named NUL.
Suppose your class contains an array of char that is used to store the string data. You do not need to "mark the end of the array"; the array has a specific size that is set at compile-time. You do need to know how much of that space is actually being used; the null-terminator on the string data accomplishes that for you - but you can get better performance by actually remembering the length. Also, a "string" class with a statically-sized char buffer is not very useful at all, because that buffer size is an upper limit on the length of strings you can have.
So a better string class would contain a pointer of type char*, which points to a dynamically allocated (via new[]) array of char s. Again, it makes no sense to "mark the end of the array", but you will want to remember both the length of the string (i.e. the amount of space being used) and the size of the allocation (i.e. the amount of space that may be used before you have to re-allocate).
When you are copying from std::string, use the iterators begin(), end() and you don't have to worry about the NULL - in reality, the NULL is only present if you call c_str() (in which case the block of memory this points to will have a NULL to terminate the string.) If you want to memcpy use the data() method.
Why don't you follow the pattern used by vector - store the number of elements within your container class, then you know always how many values there are in it:
vector<string> myVector;
size_t elements(myVector.size());
Instantiating a string with x where const char* x = 0; can be problematic. See this code in Visual C++ STL that gets called when you do this:
_Myt& assign(const _Elem *_Ptr)
{ // assign [_Ptr, <null>)
_DEBUG_POINTER(_Ptr);
return (assign(_Ptr, _Traits::length(_Ptr)));
}
static size_t __CLRCALL_OR_CDECL length(const _Elem *_First)
{ // find length of null-terminated string
return (_CSTD strlen(_First));
}
#include "Maxmp_crafts_fine_wheels.h"
MaxpmContaner maxpm;
maxpm.add("Hello");
maxpm.add(""); // uh oh, adding an empty string; should I worry?
maxpm.add(0);
At this point, as a user of MaxpmContainer who had not read your documentation, I would expect the following:
strcmp(maxpm[0],"Hello") == 0;
*maxpm[1] == 0;
maxpm[2] == 0;
Interference between the zero terminator at position two and the empty string at position one is avoided by means of the "interpret this as a memory address" operator *. Position one will not be zero; it will be an integer, which if you interpret it as a memory address, will turn out to be zero. Position two will be zero, which, if you interpret it as a memory address, will turn out to be an abrupt disorderly exit from your program.